Guest guest Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Adi Shankara defines Adhyasa as " the apparent presentation, to consciousness, by way of memory of something previously observed in some other thing " So Adhyasa is illusory perception of an object with something else seen earlier elsewhere. Superimposition of one reality on another. In the snake & rope example the rope is mistaken for a snake in dim light because we have seen & experienced a real snake before. Had we not seen a snake before we would've not mistaken the rope with a snake but with something else we have seen before. The point is for Adhyasa we should have memory of something previously observed. It is because the non-self superimposes on the Self, the existence of the Self is not apprehended. So where does the memory of non-self comes from ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 advaitin , " Yuvraj " <the_yuvraj wrote: > > It is because the non-self superimposes on the Self, the existence of the Self is not apprehended. So where does the memory of non-self comes from ? > Memory of any thing comes from a previous perception of that thing. Regards, Raj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 advaitin@ s.com, " Yuvraj " <the_yuvraj@ ...> wrote: > > It is because the non-self superimposes on the Self, the existence of the Self is not apprehended. So where does the memory of non-self comes from ? > Shree Yuvraj - PraNAms Just as when I go to deep sleep (laya) the memory of the world goes into a potential form in the mind, similarly when cosmic sleep occurs (pralaya) the memory of all beings goes into a potential form - this is called karma which forms the basis for the creation of anaatma. Thus previous life forms the basis for the present life and previous to previous life forms the basis for the previous life and this is eternal cycle - the creation-sustenance and annihilation - cycle goes on until one realizes I am atma and not anaatma. This is a beginning less cycle since root cause is avidya which is beginning less. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Dear Sri Yuvaraj ji, Namaste. What Sri Sadaji and Sri Raj said are very apt. In the Adhyasa Bhasya, Sri Shankara takes up this issue. He says: naisargiko ayam loka vivaharaH (ie., experience of this universe is there always). It is anaadi or beggingless. Asking why for this is not a question because, the answer for the same would be " maya " , which no one can explain. After all, we got into this state and it is only for us to escape this. With regards, Anupam. On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:43 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > advaitin@ s.com, " Yuvraj " <the_yuvraj@ ...> wrote: >> > >> It is because the non-self superimposes on the Self, the existence of the >> Self is not apprehended. So where does the memory of non-self comes from ? >> > > Shree Yuvraj - PraNAms > > Just as when I go to deep sleep (laya) the memory of the world goes into a > potential form in the mind, similarly when cosmic sleep occurs (pralaya) the > memory of all beings goes into a potential form - this is called karma which > forms the basis for the creation of anaatma. Thus previous life forms the > basis for the present life and previous to previous life forms the basis for > the previous life and this is eternal cycle - the creation-sustenance and > annihilation - cycle goes on until one realizes I am atma and not anaatma. > This is a beginning less cycle since root cause is avidya which is beginning > less. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Yuvraj wrote: Adi Shankara defines Adhyasa as " the apparent presentation, to consciousness, by way of memory of something previously observed in some other thing " So Adhyasa is illusory perception of an object with something else seen earlier elsewhere. Superimposition of one reality on another. In the snake & rope example the rope is mistaken for a snake in dim light because we have seen & experienced a real snake before. Had we not seen a snake before we would've not mistaken the rope with a snake but with something else we have seen before. The point is for Adhyasa we should have memory of something previously observed. It is because the non-self superimposes on the Self, the existence of the Self is not apprehended. So where does the memory of non-self comes from ? |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Namaste Yuvraj-ji, Padma-ji and Advaitins, If Padma-ji asks what use philosophy is, for enlightenment I presume, then the answer is - optional. However for such questions as the one posed by Yuvraj it is exceptionally useful. The philosopher is like the musician who can discern all the layers in a piece of music both harmonic and dissonant whilst at the same time feeling the whole. The Adhyasa music has two layers in it. (a) There is the perceptual in which the phenomenon of confusion is used as an analogy for the way in which the inert object comes to be in the mind of the conscious subject. (b) Adhyasa itself as a totality is likened to error in that it is only possible because its possibility is underwritten by the unity of subject and object or because in reality there can be no boundaries in consciousness. This is easy to see for the state of pure consciousness but in the diversified state the subject/object division seems to be an ultimate. This is the ignorance that is spoken of. Padma-ji?s question has to do with the (a) part of the harmony. It arises out of the over-extension of the analogy of confusion by making it a parallel or homology. What is also happening is that this overextension gets moved to the (b) part of the composition. Shankara in the preamble to B.S.B. deals with both of those issues without any attempt to disentangle them. This creates its own problem! However to proceed, Shankara denies that only known or knowable things can be confused. He offers the case of sky/pan and sky/dirt. Sky here is a synonym for space and space cannot be sensed by sight or have a shape. Moreover it is not true that the Self cannot be known for it is never an unknown. That this ?only known things can be confused? is a standard objection can be seen from its occurrence in Upa.Sah. Is the extension of the confusion analogy to sky/dirt in effect turning it into an homology or the effect of the polemical spirit that will not concede anything lest the whole argument fail. The important thing is that the self is never un-known which really has to do with the (b) part of the music. Again this is a minor part of the argument that only a philosopher hears or imagines he hears. Best Wishes, Michael. ---------- ---------- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2070 - Release 04/20/09 17:56:00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.